Originally Posted by Myrkrel
Sounds like it's true to the source material then - the book was full of deus ex machina, if I recall. Or have they meddled with the plot and added even more?

Of course, there are certain changes that they did, which are different in the book.

Spoiler

I guess the biggest thing is that they turned Azog into the main antagonist of the movie, when I remember him being killed in the book, and some other orc was the leader.

And they turned a couple of the slow scenes in the book, into action scenes. I particularly remember the trolls scene being slower, with everyone stuffed into sacks, and Gandalf throwing his voice around the trolls, trying to keep them arguing until the morning light.

Another thing which the whole internet seems to be in an uproar for is the way they did Radagast the Brown. Personally, I loved the way they handled him. Might be a bit cliche for an eccentric nature-loving character, but I don't know. He was just amazingly likeable. I loved his rabbit sled.

And I also loved the addition of Dol Guldur, where Gandalf will be heading to in the future movies. Things from the annexes of the LOTR will be very interesting.

What I can't remember from the book is, does Gollum have any other role to play in the other movies? (did he get captured in Mirkwood or something?) I can't remember. But if he did, I hope they explore all of that in part 2 or 3.

Just came back from the Hobbit and thought it was great! Did not disappoint at all. The changes / additions generally worked well. I'll definitely be going to see it again in 2D.

Some spoilery comments:

Spoiler

I'm totally stoked for Dol Guldur! Can't wait to see what they do with that - it already exudes awesome atmosphere from the glimpses so far.

The goblin king totally looks like a homage to the Rankin & Bass animated version with his massive flabby chin - I thought that was awesome and hilarious.

Originally Posted by danutz_plusplus
What I can't remember from the book is, does Gollum have any other role to play in the other movies? (did he get captured in Mirkwood or something?) I can't remember. But if he did, I hope they explore all of that in part 2 or 3.

It's been a while since I read they book but I don't remember Gollum appearing later on in the story (until LOTR). I could be wrong though.

No, Oblivion is not Jackson's massacring a video game story, utterly destroying premises, removing key characters with the name Tom, no mentioning of weapons needed to kill something and filming it anywhere as long as it's outside of Auckland.

Saw the Hobbit with my 11 y.o. son. Overall I enjoyed it, son seemed to really enjoy it. I liked how they explored some LotR lore in the film and especially liked how they gave the background for Erebor.

However, some of the fight scenes were a little over the top, not in terms of gore, but just the action was at times cheesier than the dreaded shield surf at Helm's Deep. Andrew Sirkus did an especially good job with Gollum in this one— he's much creepier imo than the LotR films.

However, I did not care for the way Thorin is portrayed. Maybe I'm stuck in the Rankin-Bass approach, but he seemed too young and was too heroic. It has been close to 25 years since I read the book, so maybe Jackson's is a more accurate one, I don't know. I think I may need to pick up the novel as well as the LotR trilogy and reread them.

Definitely worth seeing. If you are a stern Tolkien purist, set that aside and enjoy it for what it is.

Originally Posted by EvilManagedCare
However, I did not care for the way Thorin is portrayed. Maybe I'm stuck in the Rankin-Bass approach, but he seemed too young and was too heroic. It has been close to 25 years since I read the book, so maybe Jackson's is a more accurate one, I don't know. I think I may need to pick up the novel as well as the LotR trilogy and reread them.

Yeah I agree about Thorin - I always pictured him much older, and with a much longer beard! I'm also a big fan of the way the dwarves look in the Rankin & Bass version. I think this is my only nitpick about the film - but it's not enough detract from enjoying it as a whole.

The images of the dwarves don't even come close to Tolkien's descriptions. Is Jackson trying to make his dwarves more attractive to chicks? This is a turnoff for me. But I'll go see it over the holidays.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
Is Jackson trying to make his dwarves more attractive to chicks?

In the case of Thorin (and maybe also Fili and Kili) I believe that is probably true. It's unfortunate but who knows - it might have been pressure from on high (whoever funded the thing) rather than an artistic decision on Jackson's part. Such is the drawback of big-budget productions.

Can't say I'm hyped, especially when I think it's milking the franchise by releasing some irrelevant crap, but then again, I'd give 10 times more money for this crap that doesn't try to hide the fact it's crap instead of giving a dime to "Jackson overrated Inc".
So cya at the cinema in about 10 days.

Last night, I went with hubby, his sis and two of her kids (15 and 12) to see the Hobbit.
In short: What EvilManagedCare said, though the dwarves came rather close to how I imagined them after reading the book all the way back, Thorin included. But I'm a chick myself, so perhaps I tend to imagine more handsome book characters than a guy would … who knows?
Anyway, Thorin was the 2009 Robin Hood TV series Gisborne, and Azog was Spartacus' Crixus … hehehe. When Azog appeared, I expected him to shout 'Capua! Shall I begin?"

So much for the movie I rather liked. Now for the movie I really loved:
I went with Sonny to see Wreck-it Ralph this afternoon. My, that was so retro. And so sweet (heh)! And Turbo was really scary. And all those game characters from way back made me want to play all those games again. And all those virtual sweets of 'Sugar Rush' made me want to play Zool again … ah, the memories. Sonny enjoyed it, too, by the way .

I've watched The dark knight rises - the third of the new Batman movies. And I must say this: I don't know why it got so very fine reviews. To me, it was as if the movie writer and the director couldn't seem to get their acts together. The plot was inconsistant, the story was confusing aka it seemed like the writer etc. couldn't figure out whuch story they were going to focus on, Batman's, the one of Catwoman's, or the overall plot. As for the villain, Bane, I didn't quite get why he was supposed to be the villain? for the love of ? And I do think Christoper Nolan etc. has totally misunderstood what happened during the French revolution; during the French revolution it was mainly the aristocray that lost their heads - not members of the upper classes who owned factories etc.

What a travesty - and I didn't even expect much from it. One redundant and overblown action scene after the other, interspersed with corny dialogue, burpy Jackson "humor" and stupid straying from the material. I liked the Lonely Mountain song - despite it being used and repeated as a theme about 20 times during the film - but the rest were surprisingly inferior to the songs from the old animated version of The Hobbit.

It felt like watching a Star Wars prequel spliced with the bad parts of LotR.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
It was mostly crap when he did it in LotR - and it's even more crappy here, where he does it a LOT.

I have no interest in what the audience and critics think - as they're not holding my opinion for me.

He had to make the shortest of the books into a trilogy somehow, right? Actually, it was that move that sent the movie from 'theater' to 'digital rental' for me … I knew it would be loaded with ponderous exposition and crap filler.